BHOJA P. KUCKIAN OF BOMBAY Vs. SHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Award made by the 7th Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 274 of 1979. The Award is dated 20th Dec. 1983.

(2.) The facts giving rise briefly to this petition are as follows:

(3.) At the outset it maybe stated that the dispute was to the effect that according to the workman who was working as a cashier from 1969 his services came to be terminated for arbitrary reasons. From the written statement filed to the statement of claim and from the evidence which is on record, I find that the employer has failed to establish clearly as to the exact ground on which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. There are at least 2 or 3 versions which I find from the evidence on record and the employer, it seems, is not clear as to how and why the services of the cashier - petitioner came to be terminated. At this stage, different versions have been given by the employer. The Labour Court also in the impugned order found that there was no evidence of any witness in support of the grounds for terminating the services of the petitioner. One of the contentions raised by the management was that the workman was employed as a supervisor and he was drawing a salary of more than of Rs. 500.00 per month and therefore he is not a workman under Sec. 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a workman looking to the duties which he used to carry out. It is also clear from the impugned order that the Labour Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the termination of the services of the petitioner was contrary to law. In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned Award the above contradiction and different versions advanced by the management are clearly brought out. However, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the impugned Award was correct or not with regard to the termination of the services of the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the management has not sought to challenge the Award on that ground.